Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Proposed decision

Comment from MarshalN20
Dear Committee, this is a comment to formally acknowledge that I have read the Proposed Decision. I also would like to again extend my prior commitment to dialogue, in case any further questions would like to be asked that I can help respond (and/or clarify). Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this near decade-long problem; so many fellow editors are no longer with us today who I am certain would also be just as grateful for the proposed solutions—it deeply saddens me to remember them while I reflect on my own time here in Wikipedia. I look forward to further collaborations! Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 08:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been considering whether or not to point this out to the Committee, especially as it is something that primarily pertains to the Spanish Wikipedia. However, the reason I'm deciding to mention it is because the behavior in this situation is eerily similar to what has been discussed in this case. I've only recently come across this since I noticed that Keysanger had blanked his user page and, looking at his page history, noticed that he originally linked it to that of a user named Antipatico . This user Antipatico was blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia in 2008, and then retired in a turbulent manner that included the deletion of his talk page and archives . However, what caught my attention is the blocking administrator's description of the situation , the translation of which is as follows:
 * "Antipatico, there was no other remedy than to block you for some time according to the "sabotage against the project" that constitutes your attitude in the matter of article titles. You were given multiple reasons, but did not understand them. Multiple long discussions were had, but you did not understand them. You went to the administrator's noticeboard, and there were explained and again did not understand them. Your opinion was against principle, according to the policies and the opinion of all else who participated. And you did not understand them. You were asked for reasons, but did not provide them. You were given 15 days, but did not use the time. The time being up, it was proceeded to be done as announced, but, evidently, you did not understand it. Revert after systematic revert to defend a series of arbitrary titles without any other reason than your closed negativity and refusal to step beyond argumentations. That is, I told you, you were advised, you were retold, and yet continued repeating your behavior and sabotage. As such, you are now being sanctioned, as all those who obstruct the project are sanctioned. We are neither here for fights nor stubbornness, we are constructing an encyclopedia on the basis of certain norms. I hope that the block for a week will help change your attitude. Greetings, Galio."


 * I'm pretty sure that this user Antipatico is the same person as Keysanger, because Antipatico is the name that Keysanger used in the German Wikipedia.
 * So, what does this mean? After careful consideration, I think this is relevant because it demonstrates that the behavior in question has occurred independent of my participation (I have never interacted with the user Antipatico in any Wikipedia project).
 * I've been trying to explain to the Committee that this dispute has involved multiple users, not just Keysanger and me. This other piece of evidence further proves that Keysanger exhibits the same type of behavior in multiple Wikipedia projects (constant bickering against editorial consensus, disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point) of his own personal decision (not as a result of me).


 * Ideally, I would hope that this helps provide some reconsideration on the proposed decisions. For example, I would suggest that, if an IBAN is to be placed, it should be one-way and on Keysanger.


 * As for the topic ban, the central premise as to why this is necessary is clear to me as directly related to the misuse of sources. Keysanger has distorted the views of authors Carlos Contreras and Ronald Bruce St. John, and he has also imposed the idea that the War of the Pacific was not primarily an economic conflict over nitrates (which is a totally fringe stance). I know that the majority of the people in the Committee are not experts on this topic, but it really doesn't require expertise to realize that there is something inherently wrong with a user arguing that a fight over the driest non-polar desert in the planet (the Atacama Desert) was not principally due to the region's mineral wealth.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 05:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 1RR: Getting either party to dialogue is not an issue. The evidence shows that this case has gone through various talk page, AN/I, and formal mediation discussions. A 1RR restriction wouldn't be a remedy, and could instead be misused as a leverage to avoid discussions. I would instead suggest placing a permanent semi-protection on the War of the Pacific article, as this would encourage account creation to engage in dialogue.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How would preventing non-autoconfirmed editors from editing the article resolve the current issues? On the issue of the 1RR, in the context of an IBAN, I see a huge potential for problems if both parties are now unable to engage in dialogue. Mkdw  talk 04:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, there's been a problematic appearance of non-autoconfirmed editors (generally from Australia, Peru, and Chile), which have complicated the case and led to accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry (see here, for example). The case has mostly focused on the interaction between Keysanger and me, but I have been very clear (from the beginning) that this is a matter that involves multiple editors over multiple years. I don't understand why the Committee refuses to see this beyond a dispute of two editors, preferring to turn this into a dichotomy of sorts (it reminds me of that 'numerical (proportional) fallacy' pointed out by John Oliver in the Last Week Tonight episode with Bill Nye ).
 * There's also a precedent to this; controversial war articles, such as World War II and the American Civil War article, have semi-protection. Hasn't this case demonstrated that the War of the Pacific is also a controversial war article? As an aside, I do have to comment negatively on the "Western-centric" protection of controversial articles in Wikipedia.
 * The IBAN will indeed prevent dialogue between Keysanger and me, but instituting a 1RR is not going to restore dialogue between Keysanger and me. I don't understand the logic behind the 1RR proposal. What I do foresee is that a 1RR restriction is going to be abused by other users who won't engage in dialogue, thereby completely causing the opposite desired effect. In order for a 1RR to have any positive effect, it must be instituted on all participants of a discussion (which would be an article sanction); this is what, I think, the user Robert McClenon suggested at the start of the case.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 10:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear, thank you for the clarifications below. To also be clear, I'm not accusing Keysanger of having a sockpuppet in the Spanish Wikipedia. The purpose of the above behavior from Keysanger's other account (Antipatico) is to demonstrate a behavioral pattern that is independent of my participation. In other words, I'm not the trigger to Keysanger's outbursts; he behaves that way in general. He also "can't work" with , , , and the list goes on.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of points for further clarification: (1) I have never stated that Keysanger has borderline personality disorder. This is a serious accusation that has no proof to back it up. (2) While a Solomonic decision may seem like a fair approach, it seems to me that this is not going to reach a solution. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the project can't advance if a user is on a quest to impose a particular POV in a topic. In this specific case, the POV being pursued is fringe and expressly anti-Peruvian/Bolivian. Matters are further complicated when this particular user invents excuses to hinder discussion, such as the false accusations of personal attacks.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm also dumbfounded by the appearance of the phrase "potentially criminal offense". I don't understand how any aspect of this discussion can even be remotely assumed to be a crime.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Even after the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) was renamed, the name "Secret Alliance Treaty..." continues to be used excessively by Keysanger whenever possible. This is borderline user behavior, but certainly relates to the content. How much emphasis on the secrecy of the document is too much emphasis before it becomes disruptively WP:POINTY?"
 * It seems to me that the word "borderline" is being taken out of context. Here is the entire text:


 * As can be seen from the sentence, the word "borderline" at no point is referring to emotional instability. Rather, I use the term "borderline" to explain that the action is not entirely a content dispute; this was important to point out, because the Formal Mediation guidelines state that they will only handle content disputes. I don't understand how this could have been misunderstood, and was certainly not aware that Keysanger had been diagnosed with BPD.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Keysanger's appreciation of the matter, I am seeing that the Committee is faltering to the pressure of a person who continues to decontextualize statements and use confrontational language ("dilettante buffoonery"). The purpose of a remedy, such as a topic ban, is to prevent the continuation of behavior that is detrimental to the collaborative project that is Wikipedia. Keysanger shows no remorse for his behavior, instead further exhibiting it in this talk page, which demonstrates that a simple "warning" is neither a sufficient nor adequate remedy. The problem is only going to continue.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the amount of "remedies" being placed is unnecessarily confusing and bureaucratic. Considering Occam's razor, I'm of the opinion that the simplest solution is the best solution. If the general opinion from the Committee is that only placing one topic ban is unjust, then please do go ahead and topic ban me as well. The current state of the War of the Pacific article is unacceptable, and it would be far more preferable to have new eyes look and work on it than to continue the problematic and stressful present state of affairs. I'm not going to make a melodrama out of this matter. Kind regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 04:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * you're not wrong, though some of these remedies are proposed as alternatives to other ones, and not in addition to them. There's a symmetry to matching topic bans, in the spirit of Kill them all; let God sort them out. It would certainly be simpler. But we are trying - perhaps too hard - to retain you both as editors in this field. I suspect we will end up with nothing more exciting than an I-ban, a warning and a slightly artificial mechanism for resolving source interpretations. For all that this dispute has lasted years, neither of you have exhibited the kind of misconduct that usually comes to Arbcom. So anything more than minor remedies would be excessive. If we do end up with just an iban and a few other odds and ends, will that really have resolved this dispute? If so, could it have been done at ANI two months ago? These are questions to be considered at leisure, when the case finally packs up and moves along. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Keysanger
-- Keysanger (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) What about MarshalM20 manipulation and misuse of sources?
 * 2) What about MarshalN20 screw up of the Formal Mediation?
 * 3) What about MarshalN20 games the system and he is unable to abide the WP rules?
 * 4) What about MarshalN20 Off Wiki attacks?

It is noteworthy about the quality and intention of the discussion that the user who wrote will be allowed to continue his edits about Bolivia. At the contrary, the user who denounced these aberrations to the Arbitration Committee will be impeded through a topic ban about Bolivia. Good night Wikipedia. --Keysanger 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's only the idiotic government of Bolivia, and several ignorants from said nation
 * It seems to me that Evo Morales has brainwashed Bolivians
 * but that might be one of the reasons Bolivia has such a high mortality rate.

A reply
Mildly, and at the risk of treading through issues already discussed in the case - these are really old diffs (all from 2009). The issue of rehashing really very old material like this was discussed during the evidence and workshop phases and is referenced in the PD. There's no "statute of limitations" on old edits, but to make a case for current disruption you need more current edits than these.

On the four points listed further above (noting this is all my personal view, and other Arbs might disagree):
 * 1) Source manipulation - both of you have accused the other of manipulation of sources as a means of misusing seemingly reliable authors to bolster particular personal biases. To a limited degree you may both be right. But this is at its heart a content dispute: it won't be solved by Arbcom fiat, it will be solved through the usual content dispute resolution mechanisms of consensus-building on talkpages, at wikiprojects, through 3O or via RfC. These are the places you need to take this issue, within the confines of the Iban which seems likely to pass in the PD.
 * 2) Formal mediation - mediation requires both parties to enter into it in good faith and with a willingness to work towards an outcome. You say MarshalN20 failed those criteria; he says you did. In practice, as should have become clear by now: it doesn't matter either way. It was tried, it failed, its failure is not a reflection on either of you.
 * 3) Gaming the system -- with due respect for the detailed evidence you provided, this allegation was not/is not credibly supported by diffs. A fair bit of the specific allegation on this point related to word limits in this case. It is great if people contribute within the word limits, and they risk having clerks or arbitrators forcibly truncate their statements if they don't. But it is hardly "gaming the system" to write too long a case request or evidence contribution, and the Committee is unlikely to pass a remedy against someone for this offence.
 * 4) off-wiki attacks - we have no jurisdiction over the Spanish Wikipedia, and with respect the case has not been made that your respective editing over there has disrupted anything over here. This point is also relevant to s sockpuppet allegation above - in the context of the case evidence here, if you have allegations of disruptive conduct on the Spanish Wikipedia you should raise it for dispute resolution on the Spanish Wikipedia. There are many circumstances where offwiki conduct is relevant to en-WP Arbcom cases, but in this specific instance nothing referred to in the offwiki conduct allegations rises to the level of sanctionable conduct on this wiki.

Two closing comments:
 * First, after extensive mailing list discussion we are likely to make some mild amendments to the PD in the next few hours, including possibly a couple of motions. We have support for the Iban and the Milhist referral, but there is discussion on whether these alone will entirely resolve this dispute. perhaps/perhaps not, but it is time we brought the case to a close so additional options will be posed to flush out remaining votes.
 * Second, for all that I don't agree with you on the above points, I entirely concede that a) Marshal;N20 has a very chequered past in this field (per, for example the previous Arbcom case), and b) you have acted in good faith in raising the allegations. The reason we are spending so long discussing the PD is that we are broadly seeking to retain both of you as valued contributors to this and related topics. You clearly can't work together, but we don't want either of you to leave. hence the endless to and fro on stopping the bickering without driving either of you away. I'm not confident we will succeed; this is a eight-year dispute and if it was easily resolved it would have been before now. But hope springs eternal, and that's the spirit from which we approach the PD.

Further comments welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A false approach
 * You start with the improper generalization that this is a content dispute and that both parties contributed equally to it, but, curiously, you didn't propose a topic ban for both parties.
 * You have been unable to investigate the origin and the circumstances of the dispute and you failed to make public detailed rationales for your assumptions.
 * Take the case of the 1873 Secret Treaty. I included a quote from a well known Peruvian thinker (Luis Edgardo Mercado Jarrín) and MarshalN20 deleted it. I brought the case to the higher instance and MarshalN20 refused to accept it (Workshop To Keysanger's Evidence 5). I brought it to the higher instance and MarshalN20 insulted me 4 times as a person who has a Borderline personality disorder and a public accusation of harassment – a potentially criminal offence (Evidence 16).
 * As you failed to explain your "both parties are guilty", I assume that you mean MarshalN20's evidence when he states when it is blatantly evident that mediation was closed "due to conditional acceptance by filing party" and "with prejudice against refilling by this filing party" when you mean that I (also) has been responsible for the debacle.
 * I require detailed transparency on side of the Arbitration Committee, so, please, answer this question comprehensively, as required by Transparency and confidentiality: Who has provoked the fail of the mediation, the person who insulted or the insulted person who ask respect for the rules of Wikipedia?, what happened there?, is that a Content dispute as you state?, Why?, is it not expressly forbidden to insult during a Mediation?, are the user not required to address only the content dispute?, which would have been the correct behavior of MarshalN20? which would have been the correct behavior of Keysanger?, what has Keysanger done that violated the rules of Wikipedia?. Please, elaborate your answer. This issue is crucial for the case.
 * As long as the ArbCom continues to follow an approach based on a wrong "Locus of Dispute", there will be no satisfactory solution for the case.
 * (Nota Bene: The MILHIST has nothing to do here. The pending disputes are the 1873 Treaty, The Causes of the War and the Peruvian monopoly of nitrate. None of them has to do with military issues. The draft is also here wrong.) --Keysanger 11:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom wrote Keysanger (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, and not to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
 * Keysanger warned

as response to:

Keysanger had been diagnosed with BPD

The whole case is getting a dilettante buffoonery. --Keysanger 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You two are misunderstanding each other. Marshal's earlier comments are obviously a reference to the conceptual boundary that would separate topics appropriate for mediation from topics related to user conduct, not a reference to "borderline personality disorder". (As an aside, that name for the mental illness is controversial in part because it's perceived as confusing.) In turn, his comments above seem to be reading your post above - "MarshalN20 insulted me 4 times as a person who has a Borderline personality disorder" - as a statement that you do have BPD, as opposed to a description of what you think you've been accused of. If I understand your post correctly, he is wrong about that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to the Arbitration Committee
According to the Transparency and confidentiality policy, the ArbCom members are bound to make public detailed rationales for decisions.

Based on this right, I ask the ArbCom to clear following decisions:


 * 1) Regarding Evidence 16 (Formal Mediation), Euryalus states that [which party had caused the failure] it doesn't matter either way. It was tried, it failed, its failure is not a reflection on either of you. I ask the ArbCom to explain, if the behavior of the parties during the Formal Mediation doesn't matter, which is the function of the ArbCom? to replace the Formal Mediation and to make decisions about Content Disputes?.
 * 2) Regarding Evidence 14 (Off Wiki attacks), I ask the ArbCom to state why these reiterated attacks haven't been considered as aggravating factors as indicated in WP:No personal attacks: Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
 * 3) Regarding Evidence 1 (Text manipulation), I ask the ArbCom why MarshalN20's confession  was not included in the "Locus of the dispute" and why no remedy for that "error" has been proposed.
 * 4) Regarding Evidence 16, I ask the ArbCom to determine whether This is borderline user behavior, but certainly relates to the content.  is a Personal Attack as stated in WP:NPA Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities)  or Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. (Bold by Keysanger)
 * 5) Regarding Evidence 4, I ask the ArbCom to state why these case was not considered

In order to compare the gravity of the deeds, I solicit the ArbCom to use this diff] ( Talk to me, if you need more English.) as reference for comparisons. This sentence has been used to justify a my tban from all articles about Bolivia.

Furthermore, I ask the Arbitration Committee to reflect the respective Evidence in the "Locus of the Dispute" and to find a remedies to avoid their repetition in the future. Without an extensive answer to these questions, any productive and acceptable results will stay away from the case. --Keysanger 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Reference to 3O in "Other content disputes"
The reference to WP:3O in "Other content disputes" implies that a Third Opinion can contribute to consensus or be a tiebreaker. While I suppose that the Committee may have the discretion to require the parties to regard it in that manner, it should be noted that 3O's do not ordinarily contribute to or "count" towards consensus. See the current note at the top of the 3O page that says that 3O's are not binding and my History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding. If that remedy is going to pass and the reference to 3O is going to be left in, some future drama might be avoided by saying that the parties are to regard 3O's as binding even though they do not ordinarily have that effect. (And if you do that, you might also want to take into consideration that doing so puts the content issue in question into the hands of a single editor very much like content arbitration might do. And what happens if one party says A, the second party says B, and the Third Party says C (which often happens)? Does C become a binding content decision on A & B?) The best direction here might be to eliminate the reference to 3O from that remedy. Best regards, TransporterMan  (TALK ) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on Warnings
I was wondering, how exactly do "warnings" work in Wikipedia. Meaning, if a user continues the same behavior as pointed out in the "warning," what should be done? Is this something that should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement, to AN/I, or where exactly? Also, what type of evidence should be used to prove a continuation of the behavior (diffs, I assume?), and how much evidence would be necessary to prove the misbehavior lingers on despite of the "warning"? Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)